In this civil writ petition, the petitioner sought retirement benefits. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, noting that the petitioner's father had already received full retirement dues in earlier proceedings, and the current petition was filed without verifying these facts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7039 of 2016
====================================================== Jay Jay Singh, Son of Late Dina Nath Yadav, resident of Village- Govind Chak, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director Provident Fund, Government of Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent nos.1to5 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, AC to SC-18. For the Respondent no.6 : Mr.Binod Kumar Labh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
2 22-09-2016 When the matter has been taken up for consideration, a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4 is being filed by the learned State counsel, which is taken on the record. In the aforesaid counter affidavit, it has been stated that, for the same reliefs, which are sought for in the present writ petition, the father of the writ petitioner had also filed CWJC No.10639 of 1998, which was disposed of by a common order dated 19.05.1999. Thereafter, he filed MJC No.3660 of 1999, but that was dismissed on 23.10.2003. In paragraph 9, it has further been stated that the entire retiral dues of the father of the petitioner has already been paid.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid averments. It appears that, after death of his father, the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.7039 of 2016 (2) dt.22-09-2016
2
has filed the present writ petition, without verifying the relevant facts, for the same cause of action, which is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Arvind/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits when the father's dues were already paid in earlier proceedings.
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable given the prior litigation history.
Jay Jay Singh
State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar
Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar
Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar
Director Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar
Director Provident Fund, Government of Bihar
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
